Over in this thread I started drifting way off topic about the difference between professional, especially indie RPG design and amateur design. Ron suggested that I should start a new thread here. He also said that some of it was darn interesting, and I'm curious what in particular he found interesting.

I'll recap:
I personally believe that amateur RPG design is the lifesblood of the hobby. Not the market or industry, but hobby. It is the hobbist in its pure form.

A big difference between any kind of commercial or professional or indie (even for free on the web) design and amateur design is that the focus of that design is squarely focused to the individual group's enjoyment. Sure, professional designers play their games and want to have fun with the game in their own group, but they always have an eye on the larger picture because eventually the game will have to be presented to the world at large and it must appeal to a wide enough audience. This will effect design decisions.

Because of this tight focus, an amateur design because a "living" system. That is, as the players' tastes change or they come across new ideas, the system will change with them, taking in new ideas and other tweaks. The closest equivelent to this in commerical product are editions, subsequent versions of the game, supposedly with improvements. The difference is there is no way to track editions in amateur design. The changes may happen slowly or quickly and change back to a previous version because a new experiment didn't work out and into strange areas the players would have balked at when they first started playing.

It's sort of like cooking. Think of the pro and indie designers as chefs. They make their dishes for other people, who every may wish to sample it. This could be a four star restaurant or a Mickey D's but the distinction is that it's for others to enjoy. Amateur design is like mom's home cooking. I don't care how good Emeril is, he can't touch my mom's apple pie.

Actually, my mother never made apple pie, but I think you recognize the sentiment. Amateur comes from the Latin for love. Home cooking is prepared with love. Sometimes without much skill, sometimes with quite a bit of skill. Depends on your mother.

Now, after all of that I realise that I'm romanticizing the amateur design a tad. Yeah, most amateur designs are just house rules for D&D or some other existing game. But they don't have to be.

I think that for our purposes here amateur design


[A]will crop up in the membership as amateur designers go looking for inspiration. We should recognise these people and not give them much publishing-end advice since this really won't help them much
amateur designers may eventually turn pro. Amateur is the petrie dish for future professionals, indie or otherwise.


Or such is my take of this stuff, anyway.

Jack,

I agree with you entirely. Entirely.

Sorcerer began as an amateur game, as you define the term. I liked the idea of making it available for others beyond my own friends, but that avenue began as a for-the-future option, and it stayed that way for a long time.

My take on the RPG scene is similar to yours; I've been breaking it down like this.

1) Think of all designers and players (inclusive, meaning GMs too) of RPGs at once. Yup, all of them. That's the biggest category box.

2) Now think of just the designers, which is a sub-box. In other words, I think of designers as that sub-set of role-players who can't seem to keep from scribbling how-to-play notions in their notebooks. I suppose we could consider "for my group only" or "for lots of people out there" as sub-sets of this box.

3) OK, now think of those few designers whose games (through them or others) are made commercially available (or now, potentially for free). That's "publishing."

See? I don't buy the widespread notion of (1) Those Awesome Publishers in their ethereal towers in their floating magic castles, and (2) Those Gamers Down There in the stinking muddy fields. Design is a sub-set of play; commerce is a sub-set of design.

Two things to follow up on this.

- The usual concept of "publishing," which Jack has written about before (ie demonstrated risk on a third party's part), is an intrusion into the existing situation. It brings in secondary priorities which nearly always result in conflicts of interest between designer and player.

- The notion that RPG publishing somehow is obligated to provide a living wage for the designer, publisher, distributor, or retailer is ... well, fucking stupid.

Hence: my commitment to publishing RPGs as a business but not as a career; my commitment to creator-ownership in RPG commerce.

Best,
Ron

First, a couple points I think should be brought up in this discussion, just so they're on the table:

1) There is a segment (size unknown) of the "industry" that is of the opinion that "design" is NOT a subset of "play". In other words, a "professional" game designer need not be associated with play in any way. I point to Monte Cook's rant about designers who don't play (available at his website) and an essay by . . . someone in the "Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Essays on Roleplaying" collection as my evidence that this concept exists. I think it's kinda crazy, quite possibly unsupportable under an analytic eye (after all, there's gotta be some feedback from someone's actual play, at some point in the designer's life), and most certainly unhealthy for the hobby/industry/whatever . . . but it does exist.

2) While the notion that RPG publishing is *obligated* to provide a living wage to anyone is stupid, the fact that it - for the most part - does *not* do so does have consequences. A fair number of bright folks end up spending their energy elsewhere.

And now some questions that are often in my mind as I think about game design: if "amateur design" is the lifeblood of the hobby, why aren't more "products" designed to accommodate it? Not that you *can't* accommodate amateur design with, say, d20 - in fact, one of its' strengths is that you can do so, with greater ease than was the case previously - but most games go out of their way to make that optional rather than required. Why? What's lost by doing this? What might be gained by accepting - and requiring - amateur design (perhaps rephrased as "structured play group customization") as a follow-up to "professional" design? An example is (I think) Sorcerer's Humanity stat - Sorcerer's design requires play group customization (amateur design) in order to "finish" the rules environment and begin actual play. Just how far can we expand this idea - create a "rule set" that not only qualifies as a tool kit, but also guides each group (the "structured" part) through this customization process?

That's all I've got at the moment - questions. And maybe the best way to answer 'em is . . . design something and see what happens.

Gordon

Gordon C. Landis wrote: What might be gained by accepting - and requiring - amateur design (perhaps rephrased as "structured play group customization") as a follow-up to "professional" design? An example is (I think) Sorcerer's Humanity stat - Sorcerer's design requires play group customization (amateur design) in order to "finish" the rules environment and begin actual play.

We seem to be drifting away from the original topic, I think. I was talking about amateur designers, uys who develop their own RPG with nary a thought given to distribution of any kind. ROn took this is a relavant tangant about keeping that amateur designer attitude while still marketing your game. SOrt of like still collecting & tinkering with cars for fun when you own a auto dealership. Sort of but not exactly. But then it drifted even futher about putting deliberately customizable portions in games.

Interesting, but a different topic, I think.

Hi Jack,

OK, back on-topic then - I think that most people here are cool with the idea that "amateur design" by your definition is, essentially, the foundational element of the development of the art form (presuming that such design is integrated with ongoing play).

There are other elements too - we can't leave dissemination and distribution and publishing out of the picture, certainly, or else all that creative energy ends up encapsulated in isolated gaming groups. But that's all right. I agree with you that what you describe is the necessary, foundational element, and as I say, I think most of us at the Forge do too.

So is there an issue or further inquiry?

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: ... we can't leave dissemination and distribution and publishing out of the picture, certainly, or else all that creative energy ends up encapsulated in isolated gaming groups.